Thursday, May 01, 2014

That term-limits ballot question comes with a potentially big bonus for the winner of this fall's gubernatorial race. And I don't think it's a good idea

Two ballot initiatives have been making news this week as backers of term limits and of changing the way Illinois draws its legislative maps submit their petitions to the State Board of Elections hoping for a spot on the November ballot.

But while these two issues get the headlines, attentive citizens know that there are actually four proposals in the hopper. The referendum question championed by the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits contains three separate proposed constitutional amendments.

One is to limit lawmakers to eight years in the General Assembly.

Two is to increase the size of the House to 123 members from 118 while reducing the Senate to 41 members from 59, changing the current 2-to-1 House/Senate ratio to 3-to-1.

Three is to make it harder for the legislature to override a governor's veto by increasing the required supermajority to 67 percent from the current 60 percent.

You probably like the first part. A recent poll taken by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University found 79.5 percent of voters surveyed favored the idea.

But I'm guessing you're not all sure how you feel about the other two — about giving the governor and individual senators more power while reducing by 13 the number of members of the General Assembly.

Science has yet to build a device sensitive enough to detect the public clamor for such changes, yet there they are, ostensibly endorsed by more than half a million signatories.

I've explained previously why the term-limits folks, backed by GOP gubernatorial nominee Bruce Rauner (right), are putting forth a three-fer. The Illinois Supreme Court knocked a straight-up term-limits referendum measure off the ballot in 1994 because it didn't make a "structural and procedural" change in the legislature, as the constitution's rules on citizen initiative require.

By larding the extra changes into the referendum measure — one clearly procedural, the other clearly structural — the term-limits folks hope to satisfy the 2014 court.

But if they do so — a big if — voters won't be able to pick and choose. It will be all or nothing.

Making it harder to override a governor's veto, the issue that has my attention today, obviously increases the power of the state's chief executive.

"That's particularly true when it comes to budget matters," said Bradley University political scientist Josh M. Ryan, co-author of a 2013 academic research paper titled "Gubernatorial Veto Powers and the Size of Legislative Coalitions." Absent a substantial opposing consensus, a governor can pretty much have his way when it comes to state spending, Ryan said.

Ryan and his co-authors identified two other effects of a high override hurdle — increased legislative gridlock (fewer bills moving on major issues) and a tendency for the legislation that does advance to be moderate.

"It creates a bias for the status quo," Ryan said.

Mark Campbell, executive director of the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits, pointed out that most states — 37 — plus the U.S. Congress have the higher threshold and argued it's best because a governor represents all the voters in the state, not just the tiny fraction represented by the legislative leaders who control so much of the action in Springfield.

State Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, said he finds it "counterintuitive" to have a term-limits measure to limit the concentration of power yoked to a veto measure that would increase that concentration.

"It erodes representative government and the checks and balances that make it work," said Kotowski, who several years ago led the successful fight to drop the veto override requirement on the Cook County Board to 60 percent from 80 percent. "And besides, this is Illinois. We've had a bit of experience here with governors abusing their power."

Indeed.

Hate that proposal but love term limits?

Tough. If you get the choice, it will be all or nothing.

RESOURCES AND LINKS

States with 3/5 majorities required to override a governor's veto (6)

Delaware

Illinois

Nebraska

North Carolina

Ohio

Rhode Island

States with simple majorites required to override a governor's veto (7)

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Everyone who thinks these proposals are a mistake lives, not in Illinois, but in a dream world!
It's a necessity to get the power from Madigan, who is reelected from the same small group of 19th Ward beneficiaries of his largesse, meaning he gives them government jobs, they give him campaign funds & vote for him, thus keeping him in power.
But the entire state votes for governor & only one has been voted in more than twice.
So we need this to get rid of Madigan & prevent any more like him!

Eric, we've hit a point where it would be hard to get less democratic (small "d") - the governor's race *is* the only race that isn't gerrymandered and where primary opponents not anointed by the party have a puncher's chance. And it's not like the current system has produced impressive results. Let's roll the dice.

Hey Senator Kotowski , its not just the Governer's of this state that abuse their power , senators and representatives do as well. Senator Kotowski you sound like one of the Madigan Mushrooms,The Graft in this state is a disgrace Eric,we know what we have now in Illinois which it's a national disgrace. Im looking for any change in the cesspool they call Springfield.
Get rid of Madigan, Collerton and the rest of the MUSHROOMS.

Nope. Submit these proposals separate and we can talk, but bundling one good idea with two terrible ones (guess which one I like!) is a terrible idea overall and even if this referendum passes constitutional muster (it shouldn't) there's no reason to vote for it.

If the real intention is to limit Speaker Madigan's power (which I would never disagree with, I hate that guy too!), why not simply impose limits on leadership positions, which are in no way accountable to the overall electorate...

Since these are positions that serve the entire state they should either be accountable to the entire state through a statewide ballot or there should be limits on the length of the term that any one individual may serve. Seems pretty simple to me...

But there is no reason for term limits on regular representatives or senators, as ALL elected officials may be term limited by their electorate... If the people that they represent feel that someone is their best representative, then they should be entitled to send them back each and every election if they see fit...

The proposal that I do support is implementing an independent redistricting board, although I would prefer to have computers randomly draw the lines based on population, not demographics... Though I know minority groups would be up in arms over such a proposal because it would severely limit their influence (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing)... Non-gerrymandered districts would result in fewer "extreme" candidates and would likely result in more moderate representation that would serve the broad spectrum of citizens, as opposed to select groups...

Thanks for the rundown Eric, whose details were not listed in today’s Editorial. I liked the concept too, and I have exchanged some views with the Tribune editors during its initiation, but I have always had an aversion for “package deals!” And with Pat Quinn starting to look and stink more and more like an uncaught Blagoyevich, it is a “damn if you do, damn if you don’t” decision.

Honestly, I didn’t expect that initiative to collect 1/2 million votes, but I know now that there were strong republican interests and hundreds of foot soldiers to make it through. That aspect forces me to think the republicans behind it might have decided to exploit the anti-Madigan public sentiment among voters by bagging a constitutional provision to curb him with an increased veto power by the executive branch that is mostly a republican dominion. Is the initiative a Trojan Horse touted as a free gift to the people of Illinois? With the essence of politics being “who gets what and how,” I doubt it. But I also feel that the initiative should have been about "term limits" only, not about re-balancing corruption and clout in Springfield.

The problem in Illinois is that the governor is a mere figurehead who wields only as much power as Mike Madigan and his General Assembly permits him. Eric, is your memory really that short that you don't remember how the General Assembly over-rode Governor Quinn's veto of "fast-track" rate increase legislation benefiting ComEd?

The problem in Illinois is Madigan and the super-majority in both houses that is sustained by gerrymandered districts. Which makes the Governor's veto meaningless since it is Madigan and Cullerton that decide what gets passed. We need to break the current system. Changing the mix of legislator's in the two houses and increasing the votes for an override is a good way to that. While we can hope that the independent map making will also pass, the impact of that on who is in the legislature is years away as we wait for the next census and then the next election after that. Do we have any evidence of some governor that is veto-happy? And what's wrong with legislation that is moderate vs radical?

This amendment also seems to be a real thorn in your side. Why are you so wound up about it? You were right in 2008 when you said that we needed a constitutional convention. I was skeptical because I saw it as another opportunity for the Democratic machine and the state employee unions to rig things further to their advantage and at significant cost. But here we have an amendment that is trying to make the best of the tools at hand. What would you have us do instead? Especially when things are so broken now that many races have only one candidate.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.